Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Another day, another scare campaign—and, as usual, we heard it during question time. You heard yourself, Deputy President, the scare campaign that is being peddled by those opposite, who come here and talk about who is being affected out there in certain parts of our country. You need only reflect back on when Mr Tony Abbott was doing the rounds of some businesses in Canberra, going into butcher shops and claiming that a T-bone would increase by some exorbitant amount and going into a wrecking yard saying that people would not be able to purchase equipment or spare parts from wrecked cars as a result of some added tax. 'It does not matter where you are. You can't hide. You will be affected by this new carbon tax.' That is their agenda, that is their claim and that is an absolute nonsense.

On the Alcoa rescue package, it is quite clear that those opposite are deceiving the public in respect of what is happening in that part of the country. The Hydro aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri prompted the review of Alcoa's Point Henry facility. The government has been working with Alcoa since it announced the review of its Point Henry aluminium operations earlier this year. That is a demonstrated example of us working with this company in times of need. It has nothing to do with the carbon price; it has nothing to do with the scare campaign that the opposition has been peddling. It is to do with what is happening in the global financial crisis. We all know there has been an increased global capacity that is putting downward pressure on this company and also on world aluminium prices. Alcoa has made it quite clear that the Point Henry smelter's difficulties have nothing to do with the carbon price. The company has even said that the high Australian dollar and the low world price of aluminium are the reasons for the review of the Point Henry operations. It is nothing to do with the scare campaign that those opposite are peddling.

Let us compare pears to pears when it comes to what our household assistance package is going to deliver. Nine out of 10 households will get some compensation or assistance as a result of our direct payments. Almost six million households throughout this country will get tax cuts or increases in payments that cover the entire average price of the impact. Over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer. As well, about one million Australians will no longer have to lodge a tax return; that is part of the overall package. In summary, about $9.90 per week will cover the costs but people are getting $10.10 per week from the government. That demonstrates we have put enough of a buffer in the compensation for households to cover the issues that people have been raising with us.

In respect of what the opposition are delivering, however, we know that the Treasury has summed up their package and that what they propose as alternative compensation is going to be about $1,300 per year. We know that it will not have an impact on the environment. For example, part of their overall package is planting trees. That is not a bad concept, but to plant enough trees to cover what they propose to do in their emissions-trading targets will result in trees to be planted over an area the size of the state of Victoria, so there is no way that their policy can deliver the requirements that are intended. It is not going to be an outcome that is suitable for abating any emissions. We know it is going to hurt taxpayers. We know it is going to deliver a $1,300-a-year impost on taxpayers.

We know that they claim that they are going to review or roll back the government's package. We know that that is a fallacy. We know that they are not going to do that. A lot of them over on the other side—I spoke on this the other day—have gone out and purchased shares in the mining and resources sector. Who in their right mind would go out and purchase shares in the mining and resources sector if they were going to withdraw or roll back that particular policy? It demonstrates that they are not honest. They are not sincere when it comes to rolling back this policy. It is a complete fallacy and a complete lie when they come into this chamber and peddle that sort of nonsense. (Time expired)